Legalize Drugs Now

7/27/2019 Legalize Drugs Now

1/12

Legalize Dmgs Now!An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalized Drugs

By MEACHAN USSEUnd WALTIR~.oc:li*

AHS~~RACT .he legalization of drugs woiilcl prevent our civil lilxrtiesfrom being threatened any further, it would I-educecrime rates, re-verse the potency effect, improve the quality 01 ' life in the inner cities,prevent the spread o f disease, save tlie taxpayt.1. money, and generallybenefit both individuals and the community as a whole. Our argu-ments are lmsed on a 1,asic appreciation of t11e hcnefits provided hyvoluntary exchange and the role markets play in coordinating humanactivities. Ixgalizing drugs would eliminate many inconsistrncies,guarantee freedoms, and increase the effectiveness of the govern-ment's anti-drug beliefs. The present war on drugs has no t and willnot produce a decisive victory. We advocate :i new approacli t o thisim p~ rt an t ocial problem.Drug dealers are a thing of the past. Violent crimes and tlleft aregreatly reduced. 1)rug-related shoot-outs arta c~nheardof. The streets

'Ms. Meaghan Cussen is ;I graduate o f the College o f t i l e Holy (:rosb in Worcehter,Massachusetts. She wrote this piper as a ii~nio r nrolled il l I)r I3lock's ecom~~nic.lass.I'rot'essor Walter Block is ;I 1nem1w1-f the fiicdty of the 1:cononlics Ikp;istr~~en~it rht.Ilniwrsity of(:en tr:~l4rkanus. Conw:ty. AK, 72035, Dr. W:~lier131o(.k \ Aclj~lncr cliolar atthe Mises Institute. Dr Block has published numerotis szl ri~l ;~rlyrticles of economics ins u d ~oumals ah Cultlrrul Qvrlrrmic.i.Jozlr7la~ f'Lrrhor Ec.otir mic 's, h'ezwu~ J'A~tzrnuf ico-nomics.JozrniuloJZihetTun'cr~t Stirdi~.s, unudiurt J ' I L ~ ~ I C ~ / ~ ? ~ i ~ i i ~ t r ( l l ~ o ~ ~ , , / ~ i ~ ~ r r i u Ifljzrsi-new f!thics, H~rnwrr/,/ ouniul ?/'l.ar~lnd P11111ic 'O II C~,I J I ~ ~ I I N I/ ' % I C ~ N / .' ~ / i t r ~ o I11dEconomic St~rdm./olrnzul i!/' fJl~ hlici'i,ltrncearid f'irhl~c 'ho~cc,.~nclC N I I L I ~ I M I I~ihlzcPoiic,y, and has also ed ~t edhe first four of thew journ:~ls..I..well as numerous I X I I I ~ S Aneconomic comtnentator on national raclio a n d television. Ile lec~ureswidely o n pu1~11cpol~cyssues t o university sk~cl~nts,ervice. professional. . I I ~eligioi~s rganizationb.


2/12

526 America?~/otrrnalf Economics and Sociologyof America begin to "clean up." Communities pull themselves to-gether. Youths and adults once involved in crime rings are forced toseek legitimate work. Deaths due to infected intravenous needles andpoisonous street drugs are eliminated. Taxpayers are no longer forcedto pay $10,000,000.000 to fund drug-related law enforcement. The$80,000,000,000 claimed by organized crime and drug rings will nowgo to honest workers (Ostrowski 1993, pp. 203-205). What policychange will bring about such good news? The legalization of drugs!Both practically and philosophically speaking, addictive drugs shouldbe legalized.

Basic Constitutional RightsMANYAKGLE THAT drug prohibition protects addicts from themselves byexerting parental control over their behavior. This government-en-forced control, the anti-drug laws, strictly monitors addicts' treatmentof their own bodies. For example, the government decides that itwants to protect Fred Brown from destroying his body. The govern-ment, therefore, outlaws narcotics and, in effect, takes control ofFred's body. Under the United States Constitution and the anti-slaverylaws, this hegemony should not happen. The guiding principles of theUnited States, iterated both in the Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution, protect Fred's basic civil liberties to "pursue his ownhappiness" as long as he doesn't infringe on others' rights to life andproperty. With prohibition, Fred no longer has this constitutionalright. He no longer controls his own body. Regulation has strippedhim of his civil liberty. Fred's role of "owner of his own body" is takenaway from him. This has in effect made him a slave.

Are we being hysterical in categorizing present drug law as a formof servitude? No. our drug laws amount to partial slavery. We must allquestion the practices of roadblocks, strip-searches, urine tests, lockersearches, and money laundering laws. I-'hilosophically speaking, drugprohibition severely threatens our civil liberties and is inconsistentwith the anti-slavery philosophy and the founding documents of theUnited States. The legalization of drugs would give a basic civil libertylmck to 1J.S. citizens, by granting them control over their own bodies.


3/12

Free TradeFna : TMIX benefits all parties. It can I>e a s s ~ ~ n ~ c c lhat if clrugs werc le-galized, ancl thus were a part of the market, Ix)th the h i q w :mcI theseller would gain. Each time a track occurs, thy welfare o f Imth partiesis inlproved. IfJoe solcl you his shirt for $10, he ~ w u l dwncfit 11ec;iusehe obviously values the $10 more than the shin. If he didn't, l ~ cvouldnot have tracletl it. You would also gain from the track because youobviously value the shirt more than you do thc, $10. If you didn't, thenyou would not have agrecd to the deal. Free twcle in tlie drug ~llarlietworks the same way. If Jo e sells you marijuan;~ or $10, he gains he-cause he values the money more , and you gain Ixca~rs t- ou value thedrugs more. Whether or not another person t l)iuX?s l u r i sho~dd d u ethe drugs more is not the question. That third I mt y is not involved inthe trade. The amount o f pleasure the drug bri~ lgsyo^^ is your tnotiva-tion for buying it. Track is a positive-sum g:inl


4/12

528 American Journal of Economics and SociologyNot only would the legalization of drugs protect basic freedoms and

lead to individual benefit through free trade, but it would also bringenormous benefits to society as a whole. The first and most importantsocietal benefit is a reduction in crime.

Reductions in CrimeWHEN IIDICTIVE DRUGS are made legal, crime will decrease substantially,for four main reasons. First, the lowered price o f narcotics will eliminatethe theft and murder associated with their high prices. When drugs arelegalized, law-abiding businesspeople will no longer be deterred by theillegality of drug commerce and will become willing to enter the mar-ket. With this increase of supply, assuming a less than proportional in-crease in demand, the price of narcotics will fall. Addicts who were for-merly forced to steal, murder, and engage in illegal employment to earnenough money for their habits will be able to afford the lower prices.Therefore, these types of drug-related crimes will decrease.

Second, substance-related disputes such as gang wars and street vi-olence will be reduced. Dealers will be able to use the courts to settletheir disputes instead of taking the law into their own hands. Viola-tions of rights within the drug business will be resolved through thejudicial system, thereby decreasing gang violence, and saving themany innocent lives that often get caught in the crossfire.

Third, the drug business creates great profits for cartels. Cartels areoften international organizations, many of which support terrorismand add to violent crime in America. If the narcotics market wereopen, drug revenues would be equally distributed by free-marketforces, and would have less of a chance of supporting terrorist organi-zations, crime rings, and cartel activity and profit.

Finally, and most obviously, with transport, sale, and possession le-galized, formerly illegal activities will now become society-approvedbusiness transactions. Crime, an act that breaks the law, and in its veryinsurrectional essence leads to societal instability, will he greatly re-duced through the legalization of the inevitable activity of drug trans-actions.

The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s provides us with a perfect


5/12

An Analysis ofthe Benqits of Legalized Ilmgs 529case in point. The high crime rates during this decade were du e to theexistence of the black market, spawned from the government-en-forced illegalization of alcohol. The black market led to the formationof lnajor crime rings. The underground markcst for alcohol grew andled many profit-hungry entrepreneurs into a risky lifestyle of crime.Many were jailed due to transport, sale, and possession.

When Prohibition ended, alcohol-related crime ceased. The profitballoon driven by the limited supply of the illegal substance wasdeflated. The black market disappeared, along with all of the illegalactivity associated with it. Crime rings were brced to disband andseek other means of income. How many cri n~e ings exist today forthe selling of alcohol? The answer is none. The reason is legalization.

In contrast, drug-related crime is skyrocketii~g.As Ostrowski (1993,p. 209) notes, "The President's Commission on Organized Crime esti-mates a total of seventy drug market murders yearly in Miami alone.Based on that figure and FBI data, a reasonable nationwide estimatewould he at least 750 murders a year. Recent estimates from N t v Yorkand Washington are even higher." Anyone \vho questions whetherprohibition is responsible for violence should note the relative peacethat prevails in the alcohol and legal drug markets.

The Potency EffectTHE ND OF P R O H I B ~ O Nalso brought the end o f the dangerous potencyeffect. During Prohibition, it was in the best interests of the sellers tocarry more potent forms of alcohol. Hence, an alcohol dealer wouldbe more likely to carry vodka and other hard liquor instead of beerand wine because of hard liquor's greater value (per unit of volume).Therefore, people began drinking vodka and orher hard liquor, whichbecause of their high potency are more dangerous than beer andwine. Alcohol-related deaths increased. This l~orrific esult is knownas the potency effect.

Fifty years after the repeal of Prohibition, the potency effect hasbeen reversed. The average per capita consumption of alcohol hasfallen to its lowest level ever (Hamid 1993, 1 ) . 184). In fact, peoplehave begun switching to weaker alcohol altc.matives, such as wine


6/12

530 American Journal ~f conomics and Sociologycoolers and nonalcoholic beer. The legalization of alcohol reversedthe potency effect. The legalization of drugs will do the same.

For example, the risks involved in transporting marijuana. a low-potency drug, for the purpose of sale are extremely high. It is in thebest interests of the dealer to carry more potent, thus more expensive,drugs, which is why he or she will he more likely to carry cocaine be-cause of its greater value (per unit of volume). Because cocaine ismore potent, i t is also more dangerous. Addicts face increased healthrisks when using cocaine as opposed t o using marijuana. These healthrisks grow as potency increases. Stronger and more dangerous drugssuch as crack, "ice," and X I - ' are substituted for the weaker, relativelysafer drugs. The results are often deadly.

Health BenefitsTHE E G A I ~ A T I O N F drugs would eliminate serious health risks by assur-ing market-driven high quality sulxtances and the availability of cleanneedles. Prohibition in the 1920s created a market for cheap versionsof alcoholic products, such as bathtub gin. Alcohol was diluted or adul-terated in often dangerous ways. Needless deaths occurred because ofthe poor quality of the product. S o is drug prohibition wort11 the healthrisks? Fly-by-night goods cannot always he trusted. If narcotics were le-galized, purity could be all but guaranteed. Drugstores, held account-able by customers, would deliver safe products. Brand names wouldbring competition into the market and assure safer, better products.Doctors would now be able to monitor the drug use of seriously ad-dicted patients. Poor quality a,oulcl be a thing of the past.

In addition, clean needles would be readily available. Drug vendorsand health care organizations would be alde to provide clean needlesfor their customers and patients respectively. Today, needles areshared because they are difficult to obtain. About twenty-five percentof AIDS cases are contracted through the sharing of intravenous nee-dles (Boaz 1990, p. 3) . Legalizing drugs avuld eliminate this problem."In Hong Kong, where needles are available in drugstores, as of 1987there were no cases of AIDS among drug users" (ibid).

When was the last time you heard of a diabetic contracting AIDS


7/12

from contaminated needles? If insulm were prohibited, this situationwould surely change for the worse.

Societal BenefitsILLEGAI.IKLX; SALE creates a destructive atmospliere. When a criminalculture emerges, a community is torn apart. A Ixmning black m:~rketfosters a large criminal presence. Casual recre:itional ilsers arc. forcedto c ome in contact with criminals to make theil- purchases. as prohihi-tion makes it impossible to tnakc a legal trans;~ction.Additionally, ba-sically good citizens often deal with and. ~~nfortunateiy,ecomeinfluenced by, the criminals of the area ( H o w 1990, p. 2 ) .

Inner-city youths, surrounded by the boonling 1 h - k market, arcinfluenced by the sheer amount of money dealers make and often fallinto a life of crime (I3oaz 1990, p. 2). 'l71ese youths often seethemselves as having the choice of r en~a in ing n poverty, earning"chump change ," or pursuing a life of crime and making thousands ofdollars a week. Which d o yo11 think all too m m y young peop le willchoose?The black market presence often leads to t l ~ e orruption of policeofficers and public officials. Police, on average., n u k e $35,000 a year.When they arrest the denizens of the drug worlil who make tentimes that amount, it is often difficult not to 11i. tempted into a life ofcrime.

Dn ~g orn~ptioncharges have been leveled .igainst FBI agents, policeofficer,\, prison guards, 11.S. customs inspectol:.;,cSvenprosecutors In 1986.in Near York City's 77th I'recinct, twelve police officers were art-eated forstealing and selling drugs. Miami's prol~lem s v.orse. In rune 1986, sevenofficers there were indicted for using their jobs r ( ) run a dmg opet-;ition hatused murders, threats. and bribery. Add to tha~~ w oozen other case5 o fcorruption in the last three years in Miami alonc ~Ostrowki 993,pp. 2 9 6207).

We must question a policy that so frequently turns police officers intothe very outlaws they are authorized to bring t o justice. We musr ques-tion a policy that leads to the enormous suc.l:ess of those willing tobreak the 1au.s of our society. We must question a policy that leaves 21


8/12

532 American journal of Economics and Sociologycriminal profession in a position of great influence over our youth andother honest citizens. Milton Friedman put it hest when he wrote,"Dn~gs re a tragedy for addicts. Rut criminalizing their use convertsthe tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike"(Friedman 1989a).

Prohibit the Crime, Not the DrugTHE AWS OF THE United States prohibit violent acts against other citi-zens. This is consistent with the founding principles of our nation,which allow each free individual to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.The laws of United States should not prohibit the intake of narcoticsthat only have an immediate effect on the individual consumer. If I in-gest a drug, I am doing possible harm only to myself, and n o other. If Isubsequently act violently on account of my altered state of mind,only then am I doing harm to others. It is the subsequent action that isharmful, not the drug taking itself, Since I am responsible for myactions, I should be arrested and punished only when I am violent. Al-cohol is legal even though people commit rapes, murders, beatings,and other violent crimes when they are drunk. Yet if a person com-mits these crimes when intoxicated, he or she is held responsible forthem. A mere substance should not and does not serve as an excusefor the violent acts. The ingestion of alcohol is not illegal per se. Thesame standard should be applied to the use of presently illegal drugs.

It should also be noted that every narcotic does not turn the userinto a crazed, enraged lunatic capable of all sorts of violent crimes. Infact, it is just the opposite. Most drugs induce lethargy. Remember thatopium, now illegal, was used quite often in England, China, and theLJnited States, and tended to induce stupor. The use of traditional opi-ates did not render users violent. In fact, no drug is "as strongly associ-ated with violent behavior as is alcohol. According to Justice Depart-ment statistics, 54 percent of all jail inmates convicted of violentcrimes in 1983 reported having just used alcohol just prior to commit-ting their offense" (Nadelmann 1989, p. 22). This statistic renders theprohibition of drugs rather than alcohol a legal inconsistency.


9/12

An Analysis ofthe Bentfits o Legalized Lings 533

Save the U.S. Taxpayer MoneyAC(:OKL)ING O THE IJ.S. Department of Justice, tederal, state, and localgovernments currently spend over $20 billion per year on tlrug en-forcement. In 1992, there were more than one million arrests for druglaw violations. In 1993, sixty percent of the seventy-seven thousandfederal prisoners were incarcerated for drug-related crimes (Miron andZweibel 1995,p. 176).Jails are crowded and Ii~rge mounts of tax dol-lars are being spent on enforcement efforts that only aggravate theproblem. We can add to this sum the amount of money spent o n re-search and medical care for those infected with AIDS and other dis-eases caused hy needle sharing.

With legalization, the tax dollars spent on enforcement would besaved. The availability of clean needles ~ o 1 1 1 de d ~ ~ c ehe rate ofAIIX infections, and would consequently reduce the amount ofmoney spent on medical care, to say nothing of the reduction in hu-man misery.

Don't Help Inflate Criminals' Profit BalloonsIF WE CONT IN ~ I Ewith the same anti-drug politics, we are only helpingdrug lords get richer. Each time a bust occurs and a shipment is cap-tured and destroyed, the criminals benefit. Tht. seizure reduces supplyand takes out one or more black market participants. According to thelaws of supply and demand, with a decreasc in d n ~ gupply, hlackmarket prices will rise, creating a larger profit for suppliers. So . everytime we think we are winning a battle in the war, we are reallystrengthening the enemy rather than weakening it. 'The way to win isnot by fighting the alligators, Imt by drainiiig their swamp (13lock1993,p. 6cX). I t is better to ruin drug lords' businesses by detlating theprofit balloon than by acting in a way (i.e., prohibition) that onlybenefits them. "By taking the profits out of [(lnlgsl, we coulcl at onefull swoop d o more to reduce their power t l~an ecades of fightingthem directly (Holloway, p. 6).


10/12

534 Arnerican.Joumal of Economics and SociologyAt present, governmental control of the drug lords, while minus-

cule, is as effective as it will ever be in any sector of society (Thornton1991).Just think: even in jails, where the lives of residents are corn-pletely controlled by the government, drugs still have not been eli~ni-nated. If the government cannot even control the drug trade within itsown house, how can it expect to control it within the entire nation?Are we to imprison the whole citizenry in an attempt? Legalization willtakes the profits out of the narcotics industry.

Elasticity of Demand for DrugsMANYH~ JL IEVE he elasticity of demand for narcotics is very high. Ifdrugs are legalized and their prices fall, the amount purchased will in-crease by a large amount. This is not the case. In fact, the elasticity ofdemand for drugs in general is very low for three main reasons. First,narcotics are seen as necessities for d n ~ g sers, not luxuries. "Whileone might severely reduce demand for [luxuries] in the face of an in-creased price, or even give it up entirely in the extreme, this does notapply to [necessities]" (Block 1993,p. 694) This behavioral pattern in-dicates that drugs are indeed low elasticity goods. In fact, there is re-ally no good reason to assume that many Americans would suddenlystart to ingest or inject narcotics even if given the legal opportunity

Second, most people recognize the danger of drugs and will avoidthem no matter what the price. Third, if drugs are made legal, theywill no longer have to be pushed. If they are sold over the counter toadults, criminals will no longer have to pawn these goods off o n inno-cent youths. Competition will be high and dealers will have no reasonto resort to this extreme measure. Certainly, market competition willoccur which may result in advertisements' targeting particular agegroups. However, this would have a negligible effect compared todrug pushers' current youth-targeted tactics.

Finally, we should realize that legalization would cause potency tofall. With normalized supply, people will begin purchasing weaker,safer dn~gs . his normalized supply, along with the low elasticity ofdemand for narcotics, will lead t o only a small increase in consump-tion.


11/12

Government RegulationsA M ~ I NIRIvEn of anti-dnlg legislation is the concern that governmentwould be sanctioning an imn~oral nd destructive activity, viewed assinful in many eyes of the population. Howe\cr, the legalization o fdrugs does not mean that government and society would sanctiontheir use. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal hut \ \ e have pretty success-ful campaigns against these substances. Gossiping and burping arealso legal, but you never see a government sponsored advertisementadvocating catty hehavior or belching in public.. Are we as a society toprohibit automobile racing. extreme skiing, thc. ingestion of ice creamand fried foods because they may have a detririiental effect on humanhealth? N o . Dangers associated with these activities cannot be mea-sured. " . . . Such inherently unquantifialAe variables cannot be mea-sured, much less weighed against each other. Interpersonal compari-son of utility is incompatible with valid economic analysis" (Block1996, p. 435). We can not allow such legal inconsistencies to takeplace.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate these inconsistencies, guaranteefreedoms, and increase the efficiency and effec,liveness of the govern-ment's anti-dnlg beliefs. If drugs were lega lind , taxes could bt. cut,with the elimination of government expenditures on enforcement. Allof the money saved could be used to promote. anti-drug campaigns.Private organizations c~ulclake over the tasks of inspecting and regu-lating. A minimum age of twenty-one would bc. mandated for the con-sumption of drugs. Transactions would take pl;~cen a drugstore, withupstanding suppliers. Drugs could safely be atlministered, with cleanneedles, in hospitals where medical professiot~alscould monitor andrehabilitate the addicted. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) is agood example of a suc~cessful nti-s ihstance alxlse campaign. Private,nonprofit groups like this one could help in the fight against drugabuse.

Currently, we are not t)y any means winning the war on drugs. Ourfutile attempts at enforcement only exacerbatt, the problem. We needto de-escalate the war rather than continue fighting the over twenty-three rnillicm adult Americans who are obviously determined to enjoy


12/12

536 American .Journal ofEconomic.s and Sociologythemselves as they see fit (Roaz 1990, p. 5). We must also rememberthat those that need to be deterred the most, the hard-core drug users,are the least likely to be stopped (Ostrowski 1993, p. 205). Our lawenforcement is not working to contain and control the very people theanti-drug laws are designed t o control. The war on drugs has done lit-tle to reduce narcotics use in the United States and has thus provedcounterproductive (Holloway, p. 6). Philosophically and practicallyspeaking, dnigs should he legalized. This act would prevent our civilliberties from k i n g threatened, reduce crime rates, reverse the po-tency effect, improve the quality of life in inner cities, prevent thespread of disease, save the taxpayer money, and generally benefitboth individuals and society as a whole.

ReferencesBlock, Walter. (1993). "Dri~g rohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis."

Journal ?f'Bu.siness Ethics 12: 689-700.. (1996). "Drug Prohibition and Indivitlual Virtue." Rez:iecu qfPolitica1Econom.y. Volume 8>Novemtxr: 4 3 3 4 3 6 .

Hoaz, David. (1990). "The Consequences of 1'rohil)ition." In m e Crisis ofDm gProhibition. Washington, 1l.C.:Cam Institute.

Friedman, Milton. ( l989a). "An Open Letter to Hill Bennet." Wall Street.Jour-nal, September 7.

Hamid, Ansley. (1993). "To the Editor of the Commentary." In Drugs in Amer-ica: m e Refirence ShelJ'(NewYork: FI.Vl,'. Wilson) 65 ( 4 ) :181-184.

Holloway, Jason and W ~l te rHlock. (1998). "Should I)rugs Be Legalized'" InWest Coast Liberturiun April: (-7.

Miron, Jeffrey and Jeffrey Zweilx l. (1995). "The Economic Case Against DrugProhibition. " J)urnul of Economic I'er.spectizw 9 94):175-192.

Nadelmann, E. ( 1989). "The Case For Legalization," Wushington Post, Octo-ber 8.

Ostrowski, James (1993) 1 19901. "Has the Time Come to Legalize Drugs?' USA7bda.yMuguzi~ze 19 Uuly 1990 1: Reprinted in 1h-ug.s in America: TheR$erencr Shev(New York: 1 I .W . Wilson) 65 (4): 203-212.

Thornton. M. (1991). The Economics rtf'Prohihition.Salt Lake City: The IJniver-sity of Utah Press.

Legalize Drugs Now

Documents

Transcript of Legalize Drugs Now